Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9036 total)
83 online now:
(83 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,667 Year: 3,313/14,102 Month: 254/724 Week: 12/91 Day: 12/20 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 151 of 404 (644608)
12-19-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by designtheorist
12-19-2011 12:59 PM


Re: Is net zero energy universe "not even wrong?"
Everything I wrote was relevant.

No.

You used the word "inevitable" when talking about an unconfirmed theory ...

No.

... which only applies under certain definitions of energy ...

No.

... and was first theorized prior to the discovery of dark energy.

Yes. It was also theorized prior to the discovery of the thirteenth moon of Jupiter. What of it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 12:59 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1002 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 152 of 404 (644611)
12-19-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by designtheorist
12-19-2011 1:20 PM


Re: Is net zero energy universe "not even wrong?"
We really don't know a lot about dark energy except that it has an antigravitational effect.

Rather, it has a negative pressure.

Is it your view dark energy can be converted into dark matter in the same way ordinary energy can be converted into ordinary matter?

No, you are confusing matter and mass. Energy has an associated mass. I see no reason to suppose that Dark Energy does not have an associated mass. Do you have one?

This would be unusual because dark matter has normal gravity and dark energy is antgravitational.

My point is that dark energy may also have normal gravity. Just because it exerts a negative pressure that acts against gravity, does not mean that it is massless and does not have an associated gravitational field.

No. This is the point. Gravity is not the all-powerful cosmic force we once thought. On a cosmic scale, anti-gravity is more powerful than gravity.

It's not anti-gravity it is a negative pressure that acts against gravity in the evolution of the cosmos. I quote wikipedia again

quote:
This accelerating expansion effect is sometimes labeled "gravitational repulsion", which is a colorful but possibly confusing expression. In fact a negative pressure does not influence the gravitational interaction between masses—which remains attractive—but rather alters the overall evolution of the universe at the cosmological scale, typically resulting in the accelerating expansion of the universe despite the attraction among the masses present in the universe.

Negative pressure is not 'anti gravity' in the technical sense (which may require negative mass) - only in a colloquial sense. It's easy to get confused on that, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 1:20 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 2:52 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2731 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 153 of 404 (644616)
12-19-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Modulous
12-19-2011 1:40 PM


Re: Is net zero energy universe "not even wrong?"
Negative pressure is not 'anti gravity' in the technical sense (which may require negative mass) - only in a colloquial sense. It's easy to get confused on that, though.

Poor terminology leads to poor thinking. I'm certainly open to corrections in my terminology. A more heinous error in terminology is calling dark energy the "cosmological constant." It is used quite commonly but Einstein used the term as a way to keep the universe from changing. Dark energy is the opposite of Einstein's idea.

There are several ideas afloat about the nature of dark energy. Truthfully, we don't know exactly what it is. What we do know, unequivocally, is that the influence of dark energy completely overpowers the effects of gravity on a cosmological scale. Is dark energy subject to gravity? Possibly, but the repulsion effects of dark energy are greater than the effects of gravity. How can one believe gravity has the same energy as all of matter and dark energy combined when we can see that dark energy alone is more powerful than gravity?

Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Modulous, posted 12-19-2011 1:40 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by cavediver, posted 12-19-2011 5:55 PM designtheorist has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(5)
Message 154 of 404 (644640)
12-19-2011 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by designtheorist
12-19-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Is net zero energy universe "not even wrong?"
A more heinous error in terminology is calling dark energy the "cosmological constant."

Listen, you half-witted arrogant twit, just about everything you write here is WRONG - ridiculously wrong. So try not to make such stupid statements as the above. Dark energy is correctly considered as possibly the result of a cosmological constant. You ask me to bring my A-game here - first I need silence from the annoying kid in the corner, so STFU and STFD.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 2:52 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 6:14 PM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 155 of 404 (644642)
12-19-2011 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by designtheorist
12-17-2011 2:21 PM


Re: On the nature of negative gravitational energy – Part II
Can gravitation ever equal the rest energy of mass of the universe?

Gravitation is not energy so the question makes no sense.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the gravitational field is negative.

The gravitation field is described by a tensor field, and so cannnot be simply "negative".

Gravitation is a secondary form of energy.

No, it is not.

That is, its existence is dependent on the existence of matter.

No, it most certainly is not. Consider any of the vacuum solutions of General Relativity.

How then can gravity have the same amount of energy as mass?

Gravity is not energy so the question makes no sense.

Can gravity release thermal energy in the same way a star can?

?????

Can gravity display kinetic energy the way galaxies and planets can?

?????

At the local level, gravity is one-billionth the power of the rest energy of mass as normal densities such as planets and luminescent stars.

Gravity is not a power and is not energy...

You really do need to realise just how little you understand here, and just how much pure gibberish you are spouting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by designtheorist, posted 12-17-2011 2:21 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 6:27 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2731 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 156 of 404 (644643)
12-19-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by cavediver
12-19-2011 5:55 PM


Re: Is net zero energy universe "not even wrong?"
Charming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by cavediver, posted 12-19-2011 5:55 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by cavediver, posted 12-19-2011 6:24 PM designtheorist has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 157 of 404 (644644)
12-19-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by designtheorist
12-17-2011 2:18 PM


Re: On the nature of negative gravitational energy – Part I
Really, Dr. Guth? According to this thinking, the smallest particle would have the largest gravitational field.

How the hell did you conclude this???

Perhaps I am missing the point...

Ya think?

...but let’s examine this.

Yes, let's...

It appears that energy is extracted from the hollow shell of mass by reducing the size of the mass.

Ok...

If one reduces the mass...

Huh? Where the hell did you get that from? Can you really not spot the obvious mistake? Reducing the volume occupied by the mass is *NOT* reducing the mass. So we have learned how you managed to make such an stupid mistake above regarding your "smallest particle".

The fact the region of the field is increased is meaningless.

Nope - we've just established that your reading comprehension is non-existent. Which is not good, when you're trying to lecture professionals and educated informed amateurs. You just end up looking like an idiot.

Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by designtheorist, posted 12-17-2011 2:18 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 6:37 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 158 of 404 (644645)
12-19-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by designtheorist
12-19-2011 6:14 PM


Re: Is net zero energy universe "not even wrong?"
Charming

I'll tell you what is not charming:

Really, Dr. Guth? According to this thinking, the smallest particle would have the largest gravitational field.

It is this smug arrogant bullshit, thinly veiling your chasm of ignorance, that makes me wretch. Pathetic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 6:14 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 6:29 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2731 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 159 of 404 (644647)
12-19-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by cavediver
12-19-2011 6:04 PM


Re: On the nature of negative gravitational energy – Part II
You really do need to realise just how little you understand here, and just how much pure gibberish you are spouting.

I asked you to bring your A game. This isn't it. Minor differences in expression is a matter of semantics.

Gravitation is not energy so the question makes no sense.

I was, of course, referring to gravitational field energy. Your comment may seem witty to you, but will strike the average reader as an attitude which is not in line with the purpose of this website -"Understanding through discussion." You seem to think you have understanding, but your not sharing any.

The gravitation field is described by a tensor field, and so cannnot be simply "negative".

Are you agreeing with me then that the net energy of the universe cannot be zero?

Regarding my observation that gravitational field energy is dependent on the existence of matter, you write:

No, it most certainly is not. Consider any of the vacuum solutions of General Relativity.

Now here you may be making a contribution. But perhaps not. Can you provide me with any link of explanation of this pithy statement?

For future reference, I do try to save key strokes. If you see me refer informally to gravity when you know I have in mind gravitational field energy, please address the actual question I am raising. Lots of question marks in a line do not advance understanding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by cavediver, posted 12-19-2011 6:04 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2011 2:24 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2731 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 160 of 404 (644648)
12-19-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by cavediver
12-19-2011 6:24 PM


Re: Is net zero energy universe "not even wrong?"
The ad hominem attacks do not help your cause, whatever that cause may be. If you have an answer for the argument I raise, let's hear it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by cavediver, posted 12-19-2011 6:24 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by subbie, posted 12-19-2011 6:49 PM designtheorist has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2731 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 161 of 404 (644649)
12-19-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by cavediver
12-19-2011 6:18 PM


Re: On the nature of negative gravitational energy – Part I
I see you disagree with my reading of Guth's explanation. Have you actually read the appendix? Have you seen the illustration?

Guth does not say he is reducing the volume occupied by the mass. The circle does not get thicker. The space inside the hollowed out ball is smaller but the implications of this are uncertain if he is reducing the mass as well.

How would energy be extracted from the ball if he is only reducing the volume occupied by the mass? It would seem to me reducing the volume would require an input of energy such as the compaction of making a snow ball.

I look forward to your insightful answers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by cavediver, posted 12-19-2011 6:18 PM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 7:06 PM designtheorist has responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 153 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(3)
Message 162 of 404 (644650)
12-19-2011 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by designtheorist
12-19-2011 6:29 PM


Re: Is net zero energy universe "not even wrong?"
Not only do you know nothing about the topic, you don't even know what an ad hominem is. Hint: it's not synonymous with insult, and using it so just makes you look like a pretentious twit. (Another hint, this post does not contain any ad hominems.)

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 6:29 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 7:32 PM subbie has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 163 of 404 (644651)
12-19-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by designtheorist
12-19-2011 6:37 PM


Re: On the nature of negative gravitational energy – Part I
Oh for fuck's sake.

Guth writes:

Thought experiment to understand the energy of gravity. Part (a) shows a hollow spherical shell of mass, and the gravitational field lines that it produces. There is a force on each piece of the shell, pulling inward. Part (b) shows how energy can be extracted as the shell is allowed to uniformly contract. Each piece of the shell is tied by a rope to an electrical generator, producing power as the piece is “lowered” toward its final position. Part (c) shows the final configuration, which includes a gravitational field in the shaded region where no field existed before. Thus, the creation of the gravitational field is associated with the release of energy.

* The mass stays the same.
* No input of energy is required, because gravity pulls every piece of the shell inwards.
* This reduces the volume enclosed by the shell.
* You are a freakin' idiot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 6:37 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by designtheorist, posted 12-19-2011 7:38 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2731 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 164 of 404 (644654)
12-19-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by subbie
12-19-2011 6:49 PM


Re: Is net zero energy universe "not even wrong?"
Ad hominem attacks come in different types. Wikipedia says:

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument...

And yes, calling me a twit is an ad hom attack.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by subbie, posted 12-19-2011 6:49 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by subbie, posted 12-19-2011 8:03 PM designtheorist has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2731 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 165 of 404 (644655)
12-19-2011 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Dr Adequate
12-19-2011 7:06 PM


Re: On the nature of negative gravitational energy – Part I
Can you please explain this portion for me?

Part (b) shows how energy can be extracted as the shell is allowed to uniformly contract. Each piece of the shell is tied by a rope to an electrical generator, producing power as the piece is “lowered” toward its final position.

How is energy extracted? What effect does the rope have when "tied" to an electrical generator? Isn't there an energy output in "allowing" the mass to uniformly contract?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 7:06 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by kbertsche, posted 12-19-2011 9:20 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2011 1:38 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021